Last week’s announcement that the Government plans to punt a decision on the next Waitematā Harbour Crossing out beyond the election included an offer – or a barbed hook, depending on your point of view – to Mayor Wayne Brown.
The Mayor remains inexplicably fixated on the notion of building a road bridge from Meola Reef to the North Shore. Perhaps in effort to finally put it to bed, the Government is offering to co-fund one more study. To the tune of a million dollars, as long as Auckland Council puts up half.
What’s another million bucks, when $106m has already been expended on reports from consultants? On the other hand, the idea has been discounted several times already, making this a pretty expensive and pointless sop. As RNZ notes:
An extract from a July 2025 briefing by NZTA on the Meola Reef option, that was released under the Official Information Act, showed that option has had multiple studies since the 1990s, and was discounted because “it doesn’t address the issues of resilience, growth and public transport reliability”, would have “severe environmental and community impacts with poor terrain to negotiate and highly developed urban areas”, and it was “highly likely that poor ground conditions beneath Meola Reef would still require deep piles to support a bridge pier or causeway”.
Moreover, the NZ Herald reports that councillors from across the spectrum aren’t keen; and the Mayor himself says it would be “ridiculous” to spend that money.
So far, we haven’t analysed the Mayor’s idea, because there really isn’t anything to analyse: no actual proposal, just a location. But in the interests of helping save everyone a million bucks, let’s walk through the basics and ask if there’s any value in it at all?
Spoiler: No, because – and this may surprise you – we’ve already built the thing he’s describing! And there’s a better location for a brilliant bridge. Read on for more…
The Problem Case
First things first: let’s reiterate the problem to be solved, as we’ve already covered in detail. In short, and in this order:
- Add the missing modes between the Shore and the City Centre
- Provide resilience for the current ‘single point of failure’ on SH1
- Alleviate the network imbalance
Harbour Crossing Problem Statement, from NZTA’s Strategic Business case 2020.
Critically, these issues occur specifically between the North Shore and the City Centre, along SH1.
A huge highway network design flaw, which we are stuck with, is the way SH1 traffic is routed via the Auckland Harbour Bridge and thus is funnelled through (the edge of) the central city.
This pressure is somewhat relieved by the Upper Harbour crossing and SH18, which togethr with SH16 form the Western Ring Route (WRR) – an important bypass for regional and inter-regional traffic, as well as providing local access to the west and northwest.
But the WRR doesn’t really address the critical demand axis, i.e. the fact that so many people want to travel between the City Centre and the North Shore.
Even so, it is one of three very clever interventions that enable the now 70-year-old Harbour Bridge to still function as well as it does despite its glaring deficiencies (most obviously, the mono-modality – that you can only cross the harbour in traffic).
Those three interventions are:
- The clever movable barrier, enabling tidal lane distribution
- The Western Ring Route bypass
- The Northern Busway plus Onewa Rd buses, relieving up to 50% of peak direction demand to the city centre.
So, the first problem with the Meola Reef idea – if it were even buildable – is that it would essentially add a second Upper Harbour Crossing. A Middle Harbour Crossing, if you like. A bypass for some vehicle traffic, for a minority of trips not using the key demand axis. It simply doesn’t address the core of the problem case.
And for a project of this magnitude, with a budget of the expected magnitude, we really need something that fully addresses the actual problems, otherwise we’re throwing precious money away.
But for argument’s sake, let’s set that point aside, and take a deeper look at the location, to highlight why the Mayor is “not even wrong”. Or indeed, why he’s quite right – just looking in the wrong place.
The Meola Axis
The thing about this idea, and what presumably makes it so very sticky and hard to let go of, is that it is primarily an engineering-led idea. It “makes sense” in a technical sense, when looking at a map rather than the full picture.
Which is to say, because of the shape of Meola Reef, this place looks like it might be an easier location to add a crossing, from a constructibility point of view.
Even though this is a relatively wide part of the harbour, the 2km reef, formed by a lava flow from the Mt St John eruption, is visible at low tide, making this look like an easier place to cross – as clearly visible below.
(The tantalising nature of this possibility has been around for a very long time, as is clear from the story of the patupaiarehe attempting to build a bridge from one shore to the other in one night.)
Meola Reef, as seen on Google Maps.
From Meola Reef / Te Tokaroa Reserve, looking out across the lava flow towards the North Shore. Photo by Jolisa Gracewood
Beyond the reef itself, there is another 700-1000m of deeper channel to span. And then there is the question of how useful a layer of basalt over mudflats actually is to build on, it has been described as a Crème Brûlée – a thin crust on soft mush.
Standing on the lava flow at the top end of Meola Reef Reserve/ Te Tokaroa. Photo by Jolisa Gracewood
Mmmmm, crème brûlée anyone? Photo by Jolisa Gracewood
Geology aside, there are many other concerns. What is on either side of this route? What would it connect to? Which modes would use it? And does it actually address the key problems?
So let’s take these in turn.
The Mayor’s route would connect Western Springs/Pt Chevalier on the south side to the cliffs of Kauri Pt Centennial Park, the Chatswood subdivision, and the Defence Armament Depot, then the wider Kaipātiki region.
Kauri Point and environs, where the putative Meola bridge would land.
And here’s the southern section, showing Meola Reef Reserve – which includes a popular off-leash dog park – covering a capped old rubbish dump.
Then, on the south side of the recently rebuild Meola Road, you have MOTAT 2 and the Seddon Fields sports grounds, two schools (Western Springs College and Pasadena Intermediate), the Auckland Zoo, and the much loved Western Springs Park, with the new Auckland Bowl stadium arena.
The reef itself is flanked by two waterways: Meola Creek/ Waitītiko, and Waiōrea/Motions Creek (not named for what you think!).
Meola Reef, flanked by Meola Creek and Motions Creek, showing existing amenities and surrounding suburbs.
A Brief History of the Meola idea
So where did this idea come from?
Actually it is from the very Ur-text of Auckland transport planning, the 1965 De Leuw Cather Motorway Plan,
A page from the 1965 De Leuw Cather & Company Highway report.
There it is! The Kauri Point Bridge and Motorway.
But there are two important things to be aware of here.
Firstly, there are many proposed motorways on this plan (due for completion by 1986) that were never built, and never will be built (Dominion Road, anyone?).
More to the point, there is one motorway not on this plan that we have built.
That’s the Upper Harbour Motorway, SH18, including the Upper Harbour Bridge (as shown below), which links SH1 north to SH16, and connects to SH20, to make the Western Ring Route. (See Wikipedia, and also NZTA for a short history).
So this is key problem with the Mayor’s idea, we’ve already done it! A traffic bypass for the Harbour Bridge has been built as envisaged – but just on a more northerly alignment, tucked in behind Hobsonville Point. And it’s effective for serving inter-regional and intra-regional vehicle journeys looking to bypass the central part of SH1 over the harbour and through the city.
It’s already there, having been built over many decades and at great expense. We are not going to do this again.
The road networks
Here’s the wider picture, showing SH18, the Upper Harbour Crossing, and the Western Ring Route:
Waitematā Harbour and State Highway network
What would a Meola crossing – if it were even technically possible – add to this picture? More connection to State Highways? A sort of middle rung?
Meola Crossing to existing motorways – what’s to be gained, exactly?
On the southern side, the reef is only about 2km from SH16, which looks appealingly simple on a map. However, actually connecting to SH16 anywhere in Western Springs is unworkable, as there is nowhere for the necessary interchange – and this would pour more traffic onto an already full motorway. The network effects would be chaotic, and the local impacts horrendous.
To the north, any bridge would land on the edge of nowhere, and many difficult kilometres from the state highway network.
Furthermore, on both sides the land is already intensely used, in one way and another. So quite apart from the issues with distance and geography, there is literally nowhere to add more connecting motorways on the surface.
And tunnelling this route instead would surely defeat the cost-savings that seem a major motivation for the Mayor.
Which is not to say that hasn’t been considered (and chucked out) already! In 1997, the Meola axis made it onto a shortlist of crossing options – see below, where options 9.1 and 16 are sketched out as extremely long tunnels connecting into the motorway network. Let’s get serious: just as tunneled light rail across the whole isthmus wasn’t viable or affordable, no way would this have been either.
All right, you might think, no tunnels no how, and no room for new motorways on either side. Then how about just connecting into existing local roads?
Meola Crossing to local roads
The above sketch shows a 5km crossing from Meola Rd on the south, to Onetaunga Rd on Kauri Pt, via the Military Depot (avoiding Centennial Park).
These are minor one-lane-each-way local street networks, suitable for residential suburbs. So, either those streets and neighbourhoods would be completely overwhelmed with traffic, or the bridge would achieve very little in terms of effective transport outcomes. Probably both; truly the worst of both worlds.
Moreover, to the south, as already noted, there are parks, schools, a museum, a zoo, and sensitive ecologies. On the northern side there are cliffs, parks, a military base, and residential suburbs to negotiate.
All of this helps explain NZTA’s disinterest in this location. There’s no chance of efficiently connecting into the motorway system, let alone delivering the missing Rapid Transit route between the spine of the North Shore and the City Centre.
So the Meola axis simply doesn’t address the three key needs of the next harbour crossing.
On the bright side: if you could consent, fund, and build it, this axis could make for a very pleasant recreational walking and cycling route over the harbour.
On the other hand: if a Mayor had a whim to build something like that, as his legacy – surely it’d smarter and more achievable to secure funding for finishing something that’s already under way and wildly popular, like say Te Whau Pathway? Plenty of places around town where a spare million bucks wouldn’t go amiss.
What about housing?
In interviews, the Mayor has claimed that his idea would unlock land currently occupied by the military depot on the North Shore, enabling it to be converted to housing.
There is no information on whether the military are interested in selling this rugged site for housing. In theory, if available, it likely could support some housing – as any land could – but how much isn’t clear. Nor is it immediately obvious that such a bridge would be necessary to achieve this.
The larger point is that this would be exactly the sort of out of sequence housing growth that the Mayor has been quite correctly opposing for some time. The land in question is not within the area covered by the Central Interceptor or the Rapid Transit Network that he has rightly been promoting as the right places for housing development.
Look at what’s possible: the Waitematā Bridge
But really, please, can we move our eyes back towards the real problem, and seize the true potential here. Instead of wasting a million bucks on a repetitive report to no good end, the Mayor and Council have a much more meaningful opportunity to assertively intervene in this conversation, and make a real difference to the outcome for Auckland.
The Government has said it will assess “market-led proposals” in the new evaluation process.
We believe that must include the bridge proposal we are backing, as described here, and as presented to Council, here.
This proposal meets the problem case fully, and at the lowest possible cost. It gives our city a beautiful new icon to grace its glorious harbour, for us all to experience via every mode of travel. And it’s future-proofed for any future rail system to the Shore.
All it needs is confident and tenacious political champions who can sing of its value, as Len Brown did with the CRL.
The Waitematā Bridge in a nutshell
The proposal is for a new six-lane bridge across the harbour, designed to work in conjunction with the existing harbour bridge to separate motorway and local traffic, while also adding rapid transit and bus lanes, and walking and cycling paths.
It’s aimed at adding the missing modes while also adding missing counter-peak capacity to the state highway. The plan balances the lanes either side of the harbour and separates city commuter traffic from motorway through-traffic, providing resilience and the ability to manage lane closures better.
The proposed Waitematā Bridge, as backed by Greater Auckland. More here.
There is one thing we do wholeheartedly agree with the Mayor about: it’s bonkers that NZTA insists any additional bridge crossing has to be strictly parallel to the existing one.
We have never been able to make any sense out of this, especially as it seems to make the whole idea of a new bridge both less desirable and effective. Why on earth would you further pave over St Marys Bay and Northcote Point, when you can just skip them both by swinging a little to the east and using a shorter and more direct alignment?
Funnily enough, this more sensible alignment appeared in an earlier official proposal (from 2008?), albeit with a wholly unnecessary and absurdly large interchange at the city end (likely due to an obsession with tunnelling under Victoria Park).
NZTA/BECA 2008 https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2019/06/05/a-history-of-harbour-crossing-options/
Whereas, the proposal we endorse takes the far simpler approach of tying in with the existing viaducts, having sailed over Westhaven, preserving St Mary’s Bay and leaving Victoria Park undisturbed.
The Waitematā Bridge – not parallel, but landing to the east of the current bridge. Image: Nicolas Reid/ MRCagney
If the Mayor can see his way clear to letting go of the Meola notion, and guiding Council towards the more practical solution to the existing problem statement, then we’ll finally be getting somewhere.
Done
Ok who do we send the invoice to? $1m, 50/50 government and the Mayor’s Office? Anyone have the purchase order number?
Processing...
Let’s not ignore the ecological value of Meola Reef to the Upper Waitemata Harbour which was studied extensively and confirmed in the 1980s by the ARC when we had effective regional government in Auckland.
What would be good is if our local and central government representatives could learn from the past. Along with realising that what they decide for projects of this size will not bear fruit until they are possible long gone.
Look at the CRL. 100 years to get something built that was obviously needed for all that time. True what we ended up with is different to what was first planned but that’s because we waited so long things needed to change.
In any case please can we all agree this is for next generations and deal with not being able to cut the ribbons.
Also who ever decided to put red text on green needs to remember there are colour blind people.
In fact the first official study of the Meola Reef bridge idea was published by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority in 1974. Freeman Fox (designers of the original harbour bridge) were commissioned to investigate that route and produced a 58 page report. They in turn hired local engineering company to investigate the geo-technical issues. T&T drilled 9 test bores through the northern part of the reef verifying that the hard basalt of the reef was 3-15 metres thick, but tested on many metres of soft marine mud and sandstone so any structure built over the reef would need deep piled foundations anchored in the underlying Waitemata series bedrock, though they figured that the reef would provide lateral stability. So, rather than offering the narrowest part of the harbour to bridge builders – this is actually one of the widest. The proposed bridge would have a main span of only 300 metres but with associated viaducts North and South the overall structure from Meola Road to Balmain Road would be about 5 kilometres. Curiously Wayne Brown claims that existing roads could handle the traffic which is obviously nonsense. There is no point building a crossing unless it is going to carry tens of thousands of vehicles each day, well above the capacity of the local network. So up to 15 kilometres of new motorway connections would be required and a new interchange with SH16. Nuts.
Actually do send the invoice along with a nicely printed and bound copy of the above. Send copies to Granny Herald and all the usual outlets with a copy of your invoice and challenge Brown and Bishop to show what further information would come from their $1m consultancy spend. Call it out any consultancy that takes on this gig as having their snout in the public trough for no good or justifiable reason other that Brown and Bishop seem intent on having a $1m Mexican standoff at our expense and someone might as well collect on it.
In fact there was a far earlier study commissioned by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority in 1973-74.
wouldn’t seem logical to build a tunnel from the existing Victoria Park lanes over to the existing lanes at Shoel Bay? 12 lanes each way for vehicles two of those trucks and buses, two tracks each way for trains (rapid & freight), and a cycle tube each way. You provide safety to those (larger mass vehicles) in gales, you open up business on the North Shore, you reduce overall congestion with better planning, and the cost blowout would take care of itself with tolling with increased use. This would be for the greater Auckland not just North Shore residents. Auckland is spreading rapidly i.e. Silverdale, Kumeu, Orewa etc these later will be a part of the greater Auckland soon.
Why be in a tunnel, especially on a bike? With the glorious Waitematā Harbour un-experienced?
A dramatic, accessible, and beautiful new bridge would help market AKl global, skulking away in sewers does nothing for city.
And costs way more too.
We haven’t got the money so we have to think – Ernest Rutherford.
An immersed tube tunnel could host both a railway and a roadway, freeing up lane(s) on the existing bridge for pedestrians
“freeing up lane(s) on the existing bridge for pedestrians”
How many pedestrians per hour do you predict would walk across the bridge, especially during the winter months. If I live in Browns Bay, how do I get to the bridge, so I could walk over it every morning?
Not saying you’d have to walk all that way every day, but wouldn’t it be nice to have the option?
Walking is for tourists and a few locals on weekends. The point is enabling active modes, then the locals can use bikes / e-bikes and e-scooters. Suddenly the amount of people who will realistically use it massively expands (not that tourist use is to be sneezed at).
Source: I spent far too much time on these matters when I was doing the resource consent for SkyPath (and that was before e-scooters and e-bikes took off, so the use case is even better now – doubly so with dedicated, separated facilities).
People could walk across on their hands for all I care, as long as there is a way to get across that doesn’t require sitting in a metal box
People obviously will ride over a bridge once built, with feeder lanes too obviously, God I know I would. I avoid the Shore now. How wonderful that would be. I would take visitors over too, on foot or bike, e-bikes are transformational for longer rides.
The shore really isn’t as far from the city as people think.
Highbury, Northcote, and Takapuna are less than 10 km; the same as Onehunga, Avondale, or St Heliers .
Verrans Corner and Milford are about 11km; the same as New Lynn.
12km gets you to Birkdale, Glenfield, or Crown Hill; the same as Te Atatu.
To save money, it could be several small sections of moveable tunnel that repeatedly cross the harbour.
I present to you the all new “submaferry” (TM)
@Sailor Boy – exactly, my current 35 minute commute cycle from East London into the City is the same distance as CBD to Wairau, most of the Shore is commutable to the CBD especially with E-Bikes
A simple solution to the constantly raised question of getting cyclists over the bridge is a regular (every 10 minutes) shuttle service. A small bus with bike racks, or similar, would be a low cost way to close the gap and would have the benefit of testing demand
We have seen how much surface area was required for tbe works at either end of the Waterview tunnel – which I fully supported. Any tunnel discussion needs to show how and where that fits into the cityscape and where the spoil handling centre will go.
Oh and also show where the imaginary train goes on the North Shore where no rail infrastructure exists.
@sailorboy couldn’t agree more. I’ve bike commuted from Te Atatu south(about 15-17kms all up) and it is a very manageable ride in terms of time. I reckon that most of the North Shore would be easily rideable to the CBD and any Bike lane had better not be a shared path as it will be incredibly busy. Ebikes flatten out the hillier sections like they were almost not there
Immersed tube tunnel from Point Resolution to Akoranga then follow the busway North, cut and cover tunnel or trench through Devonport and Bayswater. Convert bus stations as you build
Would be a great idea to have a major motorway going pass a Defence location stacked with high explosives…not!
(as well as all the other reasons)
Not sure if proximity to a military site is such a big problem. You have tons of people driving past Whenuapai and SH1 is also pretty close to the Waioru base.
I think the other reasons are far more important, especially that it would be serving way to few people and destroy way too many reserves.
Do they store lots of explosives at Whenuapai or Waioru?
Not sure, but I imagine that they are not currently stored within arm’s reach of the fence line, either. So what exactly is the problem with having them relatively close to a motorway?
To be very clear: I think the Meola Bridge is a horrible idea for numerous reasons, I just don’t think the military base/depot is a big concern. If it is for some reason, I am happy to be educated and change my mind.
If it’s not already in their radar a few emails to Chris Bishop, Mayor Wayne Brown, and local councillors about this bridge proposal could be helpful to secure support
On the point of Council paying for this – every cent of Council expenditure requires authorisation in one form or another. Usually this is done either through the publicly consulted LTP (Long Term Plan) or a specific resolution of the Governing Body (or one of its committees acting within its delegated powers) to authorise an item of “unbudgeted expenditure”. Senior officials have access to “discretionary funding” to approve relatively minor spending (usually capped in the thousands) themselves rather than clutter agendas and meetings with trivial decisions. The Mayor also has discretionary funding, nominally to run his office (largely to pay his staff, but also for things like travel and professional advice from consultants). Last year he spent a record-breaking $4.4 million, but I very much doubt that he can draw on a spare $500k from this source which is presumably already pre-allocated. If Wayne Briwn attempts a “swiftly” to sneak this item through in Council’s name without explicit Council approval I expect the Chief Executive to be dragged into a messy and public argument.
Already seen some stories that it will come from the Mayor’s fund.
How is the “Mayors Fund” funded? Does it come from rates that have been diverted?
Where do you think any of the councils money comes from?
It’s not “diverted” it’s allocated in the budget process.
Good post.
Why do politicians insist on promoting “solutions” before actually defining and prioritising the actual problems to be addressed.
The first PROBLEM is that capacity for moving even more PEOPLE across the harbour on the existing bridge using the existing mix of modes is finite.
But the current mix of modes is not inviolate.
And even the actual modes could be varied.
The second PROBLEM is lack of resilience of a single structure, and partial lack of availabity during inevitable maintenance.
The harbour crossing cannot be looked at in isolation from the scarce land at both ends. The defining failing of the Meola proposal.
But also a failing of at least the same magnitude, of any proposal based on just increasing motor vehicle capacity.
The current roads at both ends, are already near capacity and there is zero land available for wider roads without wholesale demolition of high value residential and commercial occupancies.
And more motor vehicles require more daytime storage, thus diluting the extremely scarce land available in the CBD for far more productive commercial activity.
Perhaps Bishop’s study, is just a politically expedient of appearing to do something, when really the current best thing is just more buses and more bus priority.
Can somebody in the Mayor’s office put this in front of him. How can an engineer not have read the previous reports?
“How can an engineer not have read the previous reports?” Because Wayne Brown thinks that the Meola Reef bridge is his idea, and no one knows anything.
Wayne thinks he’s the smartest man ever to have lived. Why would he bother reading the words of lesser men?
I agree with this article – Meola bridge makes no sense when compared to a bridge aligned with the currently Auckland Harbour bridge corridor in the manner described above.
But taking a step further back this additional Auckland harbour crossing process of starting with the ‘what project’ rather than ‘how will it be funded’ question is very distorting, inefficient and relies on bad faith arguments.
An example of the bad faith argument is Wellington politicians like Nicola Willis the finance minister come down to Canterbury and said we could get our fair share of transport spending (i.e. what we contribute in transport taxes to the National Land Transport Fund) if only all parts of Canterbury collectively support without division a particular set of new transport initiatives. Yet for some reason Auckland (and other regions) are not held to this high standard. The government and finance minister is willing to spend $100m (from general taxes) on investigative studies for the additional crossing. I know in the future the next excuse for not building transport projects in Canterbury or the South Island will be the excuse that the detailed design or business cases have not been done.
P.S. I am a supporter of Auckland and especially the congestion free network. as a nation we should have created processes that allowed this to be built decades ago, especially in the big growth phases after WW2. I think Cantabrians making JAFA type comments are another example of bad faith arguments. But once the bad faith pandora box is opened…
I fully agree that the South Island should get its fair share,but other regions absolutely are held to that standard. Auckland is a unitary authority, so inherently the councils agree, but other regions are forced to agree a regional prioritization between all of the councils. That’s a part of the Regional Land Transport Plan.
I don’t see how paving over some of Auckland’s few remaining inner city reserves will somehow make the city a better place to live
Well, there will be a new large road set to leave it…
A few more fun facts about this route: that the entire road between Birkenhead and Verrans corner sits at almost 100m elevation. If you pick a random bit of street in that area you can expect it to have a slope of over 5%. In comparison, Ponsonby is flat as a pancake.
It is ludicrous that anyone is thinking of a new crossing for road traffic today. Indeed, we need to learn from past mistakes. What is needed is a railway to the north branching off from Britomart and coercive and incentivising policies to push commuters onto public transport.
Kauri Point defence reserve is a vital biodiversity asset. Never suitable for housing in the past or future, defence installation or not.
I like the route, but I still think tunnel be more practical using the same alignment as your proposed bridge?
It would have a longer lifespan.
Especially if the tunnel was wide enough or just a second tunnel for a future underground rail/metro line hugging the shorelines round the Waitematā.
( And Manukau )
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2022/02/01/sooo-tunnelled-light-rail/#comment-497705
You offering to fund the tunnels? Do you have 10 billion in your savings account?
NZ doesn’t, so we will have to use yours.
My father is a retired Civil Engineer. He told me, when I was younger, that he chose engineering because he didn’t feel smart enough to do something else at University. He is a similar age to our Mayor.
Our SkyTower looks highly engineered, with zero architectural input. It is hideous, only the neon lights at night save it from twenty four hour hideousness.
Engineers are excellent at trying to stop things from falling over, sinking, or collapsing.
Our current Harbour Bridge has survived, despite being made of material that the sea air can no doubt corrode over time. It is still fully functional, carrying extremely heavy loads, double decker electric buses and mobile cranes, but remains resilient.
The CRL will be our biggest investment in movement since then, and it too is envisaged to be an important part of this city’s future.
Our problem is that we are the rightful capital of the motu, we have the largest population of the motu, and the most traffic of the motu. But some long dead persons decided to move the Capital to where the Beehive attracts the worst elements of our humanity.
Our Mayor is correct in arguing with Minister Bishop. Minister Bishop is not a JAFA. Ex Minister Simon Bridges is now a JAFA.
Everybody moves to Auckland, then to Tauranga or Nelson, or the backblocks of what used to be called Otautahi Christchurch.
In the city of our future, we will live in European quality apartments, with shared spaces, shared community features, with less need to enter a private motor vehicle, and in that way, lessening the pressure on our motorways.
Our Mayor is an older person, following the last mayor who was an older person, who followed another older person. In my lifetime we have always had mayors at the end of their political lives.
The city of the future is not decided by old white men. My father understands that. We are a highly culturally city, the Paris of the South perhaps, and despite our lower population, we suffer from big city problems.
Apartment living is the solution, but not Nelson Street style. OCKHAM began the apartment revolution, SIMPLICITY LIVING is carrying the torch, and various COHOUSING initiatives are helping this smaller living space, greater living area.
As a resident if the city centre, I have parks, theatres, rock n roll venues, cafes that specialise in coffee, restaurants that specialise in restaraunting; so my personal space is just an expensive poo pipe and a soft bed…which is possibly the secret to true happiness..
bah humbug
Has anyone ever commissioned a survey to find out what percentage of vehicles traveling from the north actually want to go to the CBD? My guess is that quite a high number want to go well beyond, and it is the large number of on and off ramps that obstruct the flow. A solution that bypasses the CBD would get my vote.
I think you are right. Those of us that come from the shore and work smack downtown primarily catches NX1 or NX2. At least that’s my opinion and my anecdotal evidence says more or less the same thing. If we could get a NX3, to Newmarket we’d cover most of the CBD professionals.
Hence I find this entire new bridge a giant waste of money spent on solving an issue we don’t have. resiliency wasn’t that why we built the North Harbour motorway and its massive and overengineered connection to SH1 that only goes in one direction…
Yes, naturally. They constantly monitor traffic volumes on all parts of the harbour bridge, central motorway junction and all the city off ramps . Vehicle volumes down to the minute are available on the NZTA website.
You might note that there are five lanes coming over the bridge at peak times, four of which continue past the CBD.
The best option for a 2nd harbour crossing, is the one proposed by RESET Architects:
https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/reset-wins-international-award-for-waitemata-harbour-crossings-design/
I like this bridge for the same reasons I like the waitemata bridge – it is reasonably cost effective, it opens up new modes of transit over the bridge, and it plugs into the existing motorway system. This last point is a big one because it is clear that the Meola crossing is going to lead to some major road construction that isn’t needed.
The Meola bridge just seems like a mid solution overall; a bridge for the sake of building one. Maybe joining Birkenhead to Pt Chev would make sense if we were a city of 10 million, but as it stands it just looks like a crossing joining two places for no reason other than it is a slightly shorter gap across the harbour than other options. It is neither connecting two significant centres, nor providing a better passage across the harbour for traffic going along the North-South axis of the city.
My other concern with this proposal is that if it were to go ahead, it would probably include a bike/walking lane which could then mean the main harbour bridge is never opened up for this purpose. Obviously as a cyclist I’d love to have cycle access over the harbour that doesn’t involve going around Greenhithe, but it would be a massive injustice to the city if this circuitous Pt Chev to Birkenhead route was the one given to us.
i have concerns about the lack of rail provision and the cost of tunnelling through Te Onewa Northcote Point in this design
to say nothing about RESET’s obsession with an unnecessary causeway bridge that traffic reduction via rapid transit service could achieve on the existing Western Ring Route
$1 million won’t go far when the fees for consultants will be last for just a week or two. When NZTA doesn’t release reports and it takes the official information act to get good information then people sometimes have bad ideas. NZTA has long had a reputation of being an opaque organization which has been a great cost for Auckland.
If the Beach Haven-Birkenhead area really needs an additional harbour crossing option – I say bring back car ferries. Hobsonville Point to Beach Haven is certainly short enough to work with decent frequency
Why does no one state the obvious.
Knock down the old bridge and use it’s foundations for a modern multimodal crossing.
No need for all this extra BS money wasting on crossing investigations (this includes the design that GA keeps pushing).
The saved money could be spent on making a bridge the Aussies would be envious of.
is it really simpler, cheaper, and less disruptive than building a new bridge to either
1) Close the main highway crossing of the Waitematā and demolish and rebuild the bridge
or 2) build the new bridge superstructure parallel to the current bridge on somehow temporary pontoons, swap the lanes over, demolish the old superstructure and then shift the new superstructure over?
I actually like the No.2 option. Aesthetically, I just don’t think the two bridges look good together. Maybe if they were on the same or a similar alignment, with a decent gap between them. They could each stand on their own then.
But then aesthetics isn’t nearly a good enough reason, I guess, to get rid of an asset which still has a lot more to give.
What if the red alignment on your map, (if anything was possible) is a dedicated frequent public transit route, with active modes and whatnot, any thing but for non-private vehicle route?
You guys should be careful when saying the mayor should pay for his own idea.
This blog has pushed for light rail which was picked up by the Labour Party and ended up costing the city 200 million for no gain.
Also big champions of the crl which is around 3 billion over budget.
Maybe set up a weekly repayment scheme to the people of auckland?
If you’re going to champion ideas in the public realm then some of them will have to be investigated.
What I wouldn’t mind is a return to the old ministry of works. Take all these consultants out of it and make it less political.
The $200m on ‘light rail’ was investigating labours hair brained half metro idea and the superfund’s scam. Light rail already had a business case.
They changed it because the surface option was either unfeasible or unpalatable.
Business cases like the crl that end up 2 and a half times the expected cost you mean?
Nothing really has a business case unless you are Nostradamus. Just a business “best guess”.
Because the villa belt NIMBYs are a bunch of millionaire crybabies devoted to the great Religion of Street Parking
For the CRL, the tunnelling cost could not be priced properly at that stage and thats what contributed most to the higher cost.
Besides, we will soon see just what a great investment that $5bn is. That amount will be seen as chump change compared to infrastructure costs to come, starting with Warkworth to Te Hana.
Your original comment was ‘You guys should be careful when saying the mayor should pay for his own idea.
This blog has pushed for light rail which was picked up by the Labour Party and ended up costing the city 200 million for no gain.’
GA’s idea was to build the light rail that had already been planned and had feasibility studies completed. $200m on design for an entirely different system is what Labour wanted, not GA.
The CRL did not end up at 2.5 times the cost. The $2b and change that gets quoted was always the discounted rate. I.e. money that gets spent 5 years from now gets a 20% discount. The roads only lobby has latched onto that number as an easy punching bag. If you use the same metric, then Warkworth to Te Hana is already 12 times over budget and hasn’t even broken ground.
CRL is cool. But the heavy rail ridership is about half what they thought it would be by this point when they did the CRL business case, and it was kind of marginal then anyway. Realistically the pre-crl network wouldn’t reach capacity for another 10 years or so from now.
So it’s very likely a poor investment from a dollars saved in time, and earned in agglomeration and labour market uplift point of view. If there are 50,000 apartments built in station catchments in the next 5 or 10 years then that would change things. How keen is council on that though.
i’m guessing your solution to the Waitematā station bottleneck would have been ‘leave as is and reduce train frequencies, also make more branch lines to further divide up headways’
With the benefit of 5 billion in hindsight, I would have chosen something else yes.
lmao, i’m sure the residents of Swanson, Papakura, and Manukau would’ve been absolutely thrilled by the reduction of service frequency from every 10 minutes at peak to every half hour or something.
you’ve got a typical heavy rail cult braincell count.
Having higher frequency probably could have been solved for less than 5 billion though don’t you think?
lol, nope.
The tracks into Waitemata were already maxed out capacity wise.
To expand the Waitemata–Quay Park approach to 3 or 4 tracks would have been equally disruptive as the CRL Albert St works, and difficult to accomplish without demolishing buildings including a new indoor stadium, or closing down the main station of the rail network for years – plus, no travel time improvements for West Aucklanders travelling to the central city, no improved PT access to midtown and an uptown that’s noosed and bisected by spaghetti junction
“Take all these consultants out of it and make it less political.”
Lol. While I actually support more in-house expertise (despite being a consultant!) I find it amusing whenever people say stuff like this. Just because reports are written / optioneering is done by people employed by a govt body doesn’t mean anything gets less political.
And in fact it should. not. be. less. political.
Where we spend our money, on what, is exactly what should be political. Its true that most people don’t have transport investment as a main driver as to what they tick at the ballot come national elections. But that’s what democracy is for. The politicians we elect should indeed make the calls on what we built. Not government bureaucrats.
Maybe I should reword that. I would prefer a ministry of works as a consistent group that were properly equipped that had a genuine pipeline of consistent projects to do rather than politicians coming up with whimsical ideas and importing overseas experts and equipment for huge money and then another party gets elected and shuts it all down and the taxpayer loses. The political stopping and starting is more the issue.
On the point of the bridge it’s still a nonsense idea to put the new bridge right next to the existing one.
The southern is often slow from Sylvia park and the northern is slow from Albany.
The problem is the access to the centre of the city and the through route from north to south is the same route.
Anywhere but right next to the existing bridge is better. The answer I think is more land reclamation like tamaki drive around the western north shore
“The answer I think is more land reclamation like tamaki drive around the western north shore”
Wow, yeah I’d like to hear more about your brilliant ideas lol
Kraut eh?. Didn’t we beat you in the war?.
Care to argue why putting more traffic through spaghetti junction and the northern motorway is a good idea? Doesn’t fit at the moment.
This bridge is a great idea for consultants and large companies that want an endless pipeline of work.
After the bridge they’ll have to widen spaghetti junction then widen the southern all the way to manukau, then widen the northern all the way to Albany.
Great moneymaker for them.
Auckland can have one of those 12 lane wide motorways like Houston. Not to mention all the congestion on arteries off that one main path.
Auckland needs less traffic funnels, not more or bigger.
it’s an excellent thing then that Reid’s sensible second bridge proposal does not add any additional traffic lanes, and merely uses the new bridge to move 5 lanes of southbound traffic onto (plus a busway, active modes and light rail/light metro provision).
Ah – mentioning the war because it’s relevant how? My ancestors beat your ancestors in Assyria in 2317 BC, so please pipe down.
Only 10 lanes wide in Houston.
That must be just one of the secondary ones.
Katy Freeway is up to 26 lanes wide.
For amanin, I was mocked by a kraut. How could I not talk about the war?
For burrower, spending billions and adding no new lanes?. That is an interesting idea. If traffic is bad will people get off the motorway to take the old bridge and the rejoin the motorway on the other side?. I would assume so.
Reids bridge adds six lanes across the harbour. Two for rail, two for buses and two for the motorway. But it doesn’t add any extra traffic lanes in the peak direction because there’s already ten motorway lanes either side of the bridge, so it lines up with what’s there.
@MRB excellent reading comprehension there, buddy. (/s)
Though, seeing as you’re unable to see why the CRL is essential for increasing Auckland’s rail capacity, I can understand why you don’t see a bridge with a busway futureproofed for rail across the Harbour as a worthwhile investment
For burrower I believe I was lightly mocking your writing ability.
“it’s an excellent thing then that Reid’s sensible second bridge proposal does not add any additional traffic lanes,” I thought that was humerous
The crl is great. But at 5 billion I worry auckland will join the likes of Springfield and North Haverbrook. It also combines lines instead of separating them which is les than ideal.
that’s called through-routing, MRB
I was referring to the eastern and southern joining at the strand and also the western and some return southern route joining at Mt eden.
Less than ideal. Separating them as a metro type line that just runs independently would have been preferable.
Mrb, I think this just makes transfers easier?
Or are you suggesting to build a separate LR/tram line from Maungawhau to Waitematā instead of CRL? I guess that could still make sense, especially if continued further south, as that would leave the big train stations for longer travel and people just wanting to go from downtown to K-Road could jump in a tram.
@MRB so, despite your opposition to expenditure, you’re proposing something that would either require a second, separate tunnel (more expensive)under the city rail link
or would you sacrifice one line’s serving of the busiest hub area in Auckland?
you heavy rail cultists don’t think through things well, do you
For John. Very good. Although we all know lines joining together is not preferable. But also using the existing rail lines instead of billions on a new light rail line is also preferable.
For burrower, for 2 billion the crl is great. For 5 billion not so sure. 5 billion could have done much more.
Tell me you don’t know how inflation works without saying you don’t know how inflation works.
not to mention a global pandemic affecting the supply chain, last-minute design changes to correct a short-sighted lack of futureproofing, etc. etc.
I’m getting the feeling you are relatively easy to rip off burrower. If a plumber quotes you 100 bucks and then gives you a bill for 500 then don’t worry. It was probably just inflation from the start of the job to the end.
Doesnt matter why. 5 billion was the cost. Reality sucks sometimes but that’s what the project cost. Was it worth it to have a few more train services and provide homeless shelters in the inner city? We will see i guess but I’m not holding my breath.
yes yes, and I’m sure all your fabulous heavy rail branch proposals to the Airport and the Avondale-Southdown line would come in at under a billion each and couldn’t possibly also have their costs escalate over the years.
only the projects you don’t like are the ones you hold to scrutiny.
Oh and as for the airport rail and the Avondale southdown line, they will both be less than 100 million and increase patronage by a billion percent.
$100m? Try well north of $5bn. There is a reason it isn’t planned to be built till 2050.
You seem to go overboard with defending these things. I don’t hate the crl. It’s great. But I can also critisize it. And say it could have been better. Those two things can both exist coherently.
We paid too much unfortunately, which was due to some things outside our control but also poor planning and being ripped off by a stupid process where we have to set up entirely new organizations each time we build something.
it combines lines which compels us to run a suburban style network rather than a proper metro.
The central city is currently a bit of a dump, much worse than 10/15 years ago, and rail patronage is down.
that newton station was taken out yet the tunnel stayed in the same place.
But hey it’s great and I hope it succeeds. But I won’t be surprised if it’s not as successful as hoped.
Nah.
The answer is to use all of our existing urban land more efficiently.
Starting with our transport corridors, and current car storage locations.
What is needed is a rail link to the north shore. If there was mass transit for people and another line for freight that would create choice for commuters and make a huge difference to the whole country.
More bridges for cars is not the right focus at all.
The obvious solution is a tunnel under the harbour.
Meola Reef is a stupid idea – more noise, more pollution and high maintenance.
Besides, the present bridge is closed often because of high winds and a bridge over the reef would we vulnerable to the same extreme weather events.
The disruption to the communities on either side of the harbour would be unacceptable and there would be widespread opposition to destroying the tranquility and peace of the upper harbour.
Outsource the project to the Chinese.
The mayor should fund the greater auckland team $500K to repackage and deliver this post (and the rate/taxpayer consulting reports supporting it) to the councils transport committee suggesting Meola reef route and the destruction on the approaches is not worth pursuing.
2nd thoughts – having GA independent of the mayors fund is a better place to land.
ps – Just “liberate the lane” as Bike Auckland recommends and we can at least get multimodal tick in place pre 2030 but even 2027 if a subset of consulting/reporting funding was put into delivery.
Save a million dollars, just get a copy of the Harbour Bridge Authority’s 1973 test drillings. They contracted Freeman Fox, Murray North and Partners, and Tonkin and Taylor to conduct a feasibility study for a $76m bridge on Meola Reef.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19730614.2.22
He’s a weird fellow our mayor.
The only thing i do agree with; if we were a city with a river, we wouldn’t build all the crossings in one place. Maybe we are a bit too obsessed with motorways instead of providing local connections.